DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
This responds to your memo dated Oct 15, 1996 to Tom White, Project Engineer stating in part:
There are many comments purported to be discussions that 1) did not happen in our public meeting and 2) are not reported as they were stated in the meeting.
Therefore, we reject these "minutes" as inaccurate and misleading.
We request accurate minutes be issued to the parties in attendance.
COE communications, including notes of meetings, inform the Contractor of understandings COE has drawn from events about what needs to be done, action COE is taking and action it expects the Contractor is taking. This provides the Contractor an early opportunity to object, as you did during the meeting, noting an omission of a comment by Marc McGovern, as reported in the notes of the meeting for Oct 15, 1996 at line 100516. Since that is the only correction you offered, COE holds that it is the full and complete scope of deficiencies you complain about in your Oct 15, memo to Tom White.
Dutra is urged to continue making timely notice of information you feel is incorrect, as will COE to Dutra, so that each side may proceed in confidence about understandings on pending matters. Complaining after actions are taken causes harm which COE holds is avoidable and thus the responsibility of Dutra.
As explained at the meeting on Oct 9, 1996 COE is using Communication Metrics to correlate performance with contract requirements. This will help both sides work through pending claims and other matters, and also avoid misunderstandings that otherwise lead to needless delays, extra cost and claims. In this regard COE is encouraged by your observation at the Progress Meeting on Oct 22, 1996 that the meeting notes were improved, and that you offered no corrections. We are prepared to discuss this methodology with Dutra to accommodate reasonable concerns, and have offered to do so at a convenient time to you.